May, 2003 IEEE P802.15-03/219r1
IEEE P802.15
Wireless Personal Area Networks
Project / IEEE P802.15 Working Group for Wireless Personal Area Networks (WPANs)Title / Technical Editors Working Document
Date Submitted / [The date the document is contributed, in the format “21 May, 1999”]
Source / [Rick Roberts]
[IEEE802.15.3a Technical Editor]
[address] / Voice:[ 301-613-5016 ]
Fax:[ ]
E-mail:[
Re: / [If this is a proposed revision, cite the original document.]
[If this is a response to a Call for Contributions, cite the name and date of the Call for Contributions to which this document responds, as well as the relevant item number in the Call for Contributions.]
[Note: Contributions that are not responsive to this section of the template, and contributions which do not address the topic under which they are submitted, may be refused or consigned to the “General Contributions” area.]
Abstract / [Description of document contents.]
Purpose / [Description of what the author wants P802.15 to do with the information in the document.]
Notice / This document has been prepared to assist the IEEE P802.15. It is offered as a basis for discussion and is not binding on the contributing individual(s) or organization(s). The material in this document is subject to change in form and content after further study. The contributor(s) reserve(s) the right to add, amend or withdraw material contained herein.
Release / The contributor acknowledges and accepts that this contribution becomes the property of IEEE and may be made publicly available by P802.15.
1.0 Clarification of Eb/No reference point and use of TG3a channel models – modification of document 03/031r9.
Add a footnote to clause 5.5.1, paragraph 2, and also reference this footnote in clause 5.3. The footnote is to read as shown below:
------
The reference point for setting Eb and the injection point for No is as shown below:
The channel shall be one of the 100 realizations from each of the 4 channel models. All required normalization is already present in the channel realization. For purposes of converting Eb/No to range (meters) an exponent of 2 shall be used (i.e. r2 propagation loss).
2.0 Suggested clarification in document 03031 (M. Mclaughlin)
Text fragment from 5.5.1 which defines 90% outage PER
The proposer will be asked for 90% PER link success probability where a 90% outage PER is defined as the PER averaged over the channels which result in the 90% best performance at a given Eb/N0 for a particular channel environment, i.e., the PER performance due to the worst 10% channels at a given Eb/N0 should not be included in the average PER calculation.
Change From
552 Values
The proposer should provide the probability of link success (the ability to acquire and pass data with the specified packet length and PER at minimum payload bit rates for the PHY-SAP for both AWGN and the channel model specified in document [02/490], relative to distance). The proposer should further indicate the range at which the proposed PHY can acquire and meet the bit rate packet length and PER requirements of clause 2.0 of [03/030] for the channel model specified in document [02/490] for a link success probability of 90%. The proposer should indicate PER and acquisition performance as a function of the distance. The acquisition parameters (signaling and duration) should be noted for all scenarios. The proposal must include the 90% outage packet error rate (PER) as a function of Eb/N0 for each of the multipath environments (CM1 through CM4). Eb is computed as the average multi-path signal energy, averaged over the 100 channel realizations for each channel environment.
To
552 Values
The proposer will be asked for the mean 8% PER distance, for each payload bit rate over each of the 4 channel models from [020/490] and in an AWGN environment. The mean 8% PER distance is defined as the distance at which the mean PER[1], of the best 90% of channels in a model, is 8%.
SubmissionPage 1Rick Roberts, IEEE802.15.3a Technical Editor
[1] The PER should represent the cumulative rate of packet errors of all types. Types of packet errors include failure to detect and acquire the desired signal within the preamble time frame described in the proposal, failure to correctly demodulate the header, and failure to correctly demodulate the payload.